Comment on Maybe this is better for everyone
naught@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks agoWe have agency over our actions and the ability to reduce the negative impacts we have on the world. We are unique in this ability, and we should exercise it
Comment on Maybe this is better for everyone
naught@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks agoWe have agency over our actions and the ability to reduce the negative impacts we have on the world. We are unique in this ability, and we should exercise it
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
it’s not clear that animal suffering is a negative.
naught@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Would you kick a dog in the street? Shoot a cat with a bb gun? These are things that happen with frequency, but I wouldn’t do because I think that causing pain to another animal, senselessly, is a bad thing.
Would you raise a chicken in complete darkness for its whole life? Would you raise a cow in a suffocatingly small pen among its excrement? Impregnate a cow constantly and steal its babies away for meat so you can continue to milk it until it dies? Animals feel pain. They communicate, they suffer, they mourn.
If you can supply an argument that causing suffering of innocent animals is good/doesn’t matter, I’m all ears.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
sure. battlefield amputations cause suffering. sometimes it saves a life. it’s good.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
“innocent” here is an appeal to emotion, since we don’t regard non-human animals as moral agents.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
no. these are cruel. practicing cruelty toward animals may create a habit, and end with practicing cruelty toward people, which would be immoral. it is best not to practice cruelty at all.
naught@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Animal agriculture is necessarily cruel. It is efficient. By your logic, this cruelty is negative. It sounds like we are very close to agreeing, frankly